Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Why Michigan Isn't "Do Or Die" for Romney

Bookmark and Share

After John McCain's 5-point victory over Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, pundits and the broadcast media immediately characterized Michigan as a "do or die" state for Romney. A Romney loss to McCain (at the time the predicted winner of Michigan), it was argued, would have three negative effects.

First, McCain would be the first candidate in the GOP race to win back-to-back contests, giving him enough momentum to break away from the tightly packed Republican field. McCain has already done this (for the moment) nationally: a new CBS News / New York Times national poll gives McCain a 33 to 18 percent lead over Mike Huckabee, followed by Rudy Giuliani at 10 percent, Romney and Thompson at 8 percent, and Ron Paul at 5 percent. This 15-point margin is the largest lead by any GOP candidate since Giuliani held a 16-point lead in a Fox News poll in mid-November two months ago.

Secondly, a Michigan loss by Romney would be a big disappointment considering it is the state of his childhood, and the state in which his father served as Governor in the 1960s. New Hampshire was characterized as another Romney 'home state' by the media because of its proximity to Massachusetts as a means to explain his strong polling numbers in the Granite State throughout the year (an explanation, by the way, not commonly invoked to account for Barack Obama's strong performance in Iowa—a neighbor to his home state of Illinois). But Michigan is a true 'home state' for Romney, and a poor performance—though not necessarily a second place performance—would be a blow to his campaign.

Thirdly, it is believed Romney needs to win somewhere (and, for the media, Romney's overwhelming Wyoming Caucus victory does not count). The media believes a string of second-place finishes by Romney in high-profile contests will signal to Republicans nationwide that he can't win, and therefore his support will drop and he'll need to drop out.

There are several reasons, however, why Michigan will not spell the end of the Romney campaign. First, the media vastly overestimated the sustainable bounce McCain would get in Michigan from the New Hampshire win (though he did get one nationally). Romney leads in 4 of the 7 current statewide polls there, including Mitchell Research's tracking poll, which finds the state trending to Romney (6 points down to McCain three days ago, Romney is now up by 2 points). Romney is poised to win his home state, but, for the sake of argument, let's suppose he comes in a close second.

A close second-place finish would then mean what exactly? For one thing, it would mean Romney lost to a candidate in two consecutive contests where McCain scored big victories in 2000 (NH and MI).

And why would this (third) 'silver medal' spell the death of the Romney campaign more than, say, that of Huckabee, Giuliani, or Thompson? If McCain wins Michigan it is likely he will perform very strong in South Carolina—also considered "must-win" states by the media for the Huckabee and Thompson campaigns. McCain already leads the GOP field in the last two surveys in South Carolina—by 3 points in the latest Rasmussen poll and by 7 points in the latest Fox News Poll.

But if that media prediction is true, and either Huckabee or Thompson is knocked out of the race after South Carolina, will their votes necessarily go to McCain? The truth is, it is not known what will happen to the Republican field as other candidates falter, and Romney has the money to stick around to find out. Romney has already shown he can turn in strong performances in the West, the Midwest, and the Northeast. If he gives strong showings in South Carolina (where he is polling in third at 16 percent) and Florida (where he is polling just one or two points off the lead, within the margin of error), there is every reason to believe Romney will stay in the race as it shows he can turn out voters in all four parts of the country.

Additionally, Super Tuesday (February 5th) offers Romney some Western states in which he should perform quite well (Utah and Montana and perhaps Alaska and North Dakota). If Huckabee or Thompson remains in the race, one of them will probably deny McCain and Giuliani victories in southern states such as Tennessee (Thompson's home state), Arkansas (Huckabee's home state), Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma, and perhaps even Missouri). If McCain and Giuliani split several of the bigger Super Tuesday states (New York, California, New Jersey, Illinois), then there will be no decisive winner on Super Tuesday, permitting Romney to continue his campaign even past that date.

Even though Romney, who was considered to be a longshot during most of 2007, has outperformed what most pundits would have predicted a year ago, the media (and, most probably, the candidates) seem to resent the amount of money Romney is spending on the campaign relative to the other GOP hopefuls. This may be what is driving the energy by the media to set up artificial 'do or die' deadlines for Romney to exit the race.

Previous post: Live Blog: Redistricting Hearing at the Capitol
Next post: Smart Politics Live Blogging During Michigan Returns

Leave a comment


Remains of the Data

Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

Political Crumbs

Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


more POLITICAL CRUMBS

Humphrey School Sites
CSPG
Humphrey New Media Hub

Issues />

<div id=
Abortion
Afghanistan
Budget and taxes
Campaign finances
Crime and punishment
Economy and jobs
Education
Energy
Environment
Foreign affairs
Gender
Health
Housing
Ideology
Immigration
Iraq
Media
Military
Partisanship
Race and ethnicity
Reapportionment
Redistricting
Religion
Sexuality
Sports
Terrorism
Third parties
Transportation
Voting